nice to see Mint Press News reposting Media Lens the UK's answer to FAIR & Project Censored, and this alert needed to be done on Greenwald who sadly is bankrolled by a corporate deep state stooge Pierre Omydiar implicated in the Paradise paper, and of Ebay and a market fundamentalist behind coups in Ukraine, corrupt NGOS, and the very thing Greenwald, Scahill and Naomi Klein claim to be rally against as well as their blind spot for the Guardian a corporate friendly neoliberal advocacy rag and MI6 Talbloid. Which parrots Shamnesty International and Human Rights Fraud (Watch) and anything Qatari funded media like al Jazeera does in wanting to see Syria and others destroyed by the powers that be. Brave of Mint Press News like Black Agenda Report, Consortium News, Global Research dot ca, to go after not just the usual suspects of the corporate state press but left leaning non profit press like Democracy Now, the Intercept, Vice, and so fourth and Media Lens also never shy to call people out so good on them for this piece. This goes beyond the tired Chomsky-Herman model of media criticism which Mint Press NEws, the other outlets I mentioned, the late Alexander Cockburn, Yves Engler of Canada, Rania Khalek, Max Blumenthal, Michael Parenti and others do which is expanding media criticism from beyond just corporate media to state and left-leaning media to.

The Guardian is pretentious, packed with propaganda, and really not on the Left at all, if you analyze it carefully.

It also is pretty close to an official voice for pro-Israeli propaganda.

https://chuckmanwordsincomm...

exactly John Pilger has described them several times now as a bunch of windbags and Tariq Ali as an MI5/MI6 Tabloid.

Media Lens would do well to remember that The Guardian spent its FIRST ONE HUNDRED, FIFTY YEARS as the most honest newspaper on Earth. It was only after they published material from Ed Snowden and others that MI5 went into some sort of panic mode and, I believe, threatened death or prison for the owners.

I finally broke a family subscription that started by my great grandfather before the First World War, only after The Guardian changed when Greenwald left.

that's being far too generous. The early foundations of the Guardian under CP Scott wasn't too hot on worker's rights, women rights, supported soft imperial power, and way after that in the 20th century supported the British government during the Troubles and was on its side as they did internment without trial, slaughtered people on Bloody Sunday, and the IRA Hunger Strikes. For former Guardian/Observer journalist Jonathan Cook, they never were on the side of Palestine justice, supported NATO's destruction of Serbia, later Libya, and supported the Iraq War and other imperial wars be it Syria or Iran sabre rattling. They cheered on and supported the Blair Witch Project precisely because he transformed the Labour Party from a fake socialist party to a Neoliberal Party and is funded much like the rest of the corporate media is funded. Occasionally does some good work, occasionally some good articles appear there but is another waste of ink in the UK and global press that Media Lens often does a great job at exposing.

I don't know about that. My father and grandfather both felt that The Guardian was the world's most honest newspaper and, until recent years, I agreed completely. They really went sour after Greenwald left.

My father subscribed after moving to the US after WW II as did my mother after his death and I subscribed from 1967 until a couple of years ago.

we'll agree to disagree then

Greenwald left but must have some kind of hidden obligation to the Guardian or its heavyweights, else why the failure to criticize? Also, note that Greenwald is still sitting on most of Snowden's data dump - which he could/should have published since leaving the paper that destroyed their own copies.

Yes of course it has to be some kind of hidden obligation. It can't be something really simple like he's worked therein the past and personaly knows people who work there and so entertains some positive bias towards then as any human being would be susceptible of doing.

This piece is a garbage "holier than thou" hatchet job imo. Found it cringy to see them beg for attention "but he never cites us!" With garbage like this, it's easy to see why he wouldn't bother.

The guy was working at the guardian when he broke his career changing story and the first thing he did when dissatisfied with their handling of it is leaving to found his own outlet ffs. What more do you want. SUre, point out that he's got a soft spot for the guardian if that pleases you. Doesn't mean there's some conspiracy at work.

I would understand and support a soft spot for former colleagues, but not for an organization that is clearly becoming a centrist mouthpiece.

There's a lot about Greenwald that I don't understand. That applies to the Intercept, too.

The Guardian is a neoliberal waste of ink and always supported until the rise of the New Labour cult, the Liberal Party of Britain which was the old controlled opposition party same side of the coin as the Tory party, and Greenwald himself and the Intercept is bankrolled by a market fundamentalist guru and Paradise paper man Ebay/Paypal owner/funder Pierre Omydiar. Once one understands that they'll understand why the Intercept has jumped the shark in them throwing Assange/Wikileaks under the bus, supporting war on Syria and the 'Assad must go' nonsense, Anti-Russia hysteria and dropping the ball on imperialism in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Ukraine and so fourth. I highly recommend checking out Mark Ames at Pando/Pando Daily's investigations into Pierre Omydiar and Whitney Webb's three part investigation at Mint Press News into him to understand why Greenwald has made the foolish statements he's made and why the Intercept has been behaving he way it has.

there's a lot about greenwald that greenwald doesn't understand... for that matter.

Probably very true.